:cool: Lets see those ''film'' shots

jgredline · 09-21-2009, 10:51 PM

These are Walgreen scans and processing...The Reds in particular seem to be over saturated.
Agfa 400, SP2, Super Tak 35f/3.5

a 60% crop

Last edited by jgredline; 09-22-2009 at 08:46 AM.

jgredline · 09-22-2009, 08:46 AM

KJon · 09-22-2009, 02:15 PM

Javier, nice to see you back here with some new offerings <g>. I was beginning to jones for a fix from the left coast. I always enjoy the sense of place your photos have. BTW, B&W scan in your previous post looked great. How are you liking the new scanner? I'm in the market for one, but not really sure what I want or how much of a financial commitment I'm willing to make on it. If I put the funds into a scanner, it means a longer wait for a lens (or something else).

Egl, I really enjoyed the B&Ws and was pretty impressed with your K20 digitizing method. Nice to see some pics from the homeland of my forebears (great-grandparents emigrated to the US of A) and I particularly liked the sheep. Bring 'em back.

Best to you both,
Kevin

jgredline · 09-22-2009, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by KJon

Javier, nice to see you back here with some new offerings <g>. I was beginning to jones for a fix from the left coast. I always enjoy the sense of place your photos have. BTW, B&W scan in your previous post looked great. How are you liking the new scanner? I'm in the market for one, but not really sure what I want or how much of a financial commitment I'm willing to make on it. If I put the funds into a scanner, it means a longer wait for a lens (or something else).

Thank you. I have not used the new set up since that last scan, but I am going to re-scan these last ones. On my monitor they look way over saturated. Is that the case on your monitor as well. The monitor I have at work is not calibrated and so I wonder. I have yet to get a good result form AGFA film..Not once.

KJon · 09-22-2009, 02:30 PM

Yeah, a little over-saturated, but that's part of their charm.

I'm really fond of this one...

Ultramax 400, K1000, M50 1.7

...so I may not be the best guy to ask

.

Regards,
Kevin

jgredline · 09-22-2009, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by KJon

Yeah, a little over-saturated, but that's part of their charm.

I'm really fond of this one...

Ultramax 400, K1000, M50 1.7

...so I may not be the best guy to ask

.

Regards,
Kevin

Yes I agree. I love that Velvia 50 look, but mine looked some what over cooked to me.

jgredline · 09-22-2009, 03:57 PM

Here are two rescans. Right to gray scale.

KJon · 09-22-2009, 04:04 PM

Takes care of the saturation issue pretty handily

. Amazing what B&W will do to the tenor of a photograph...

Best,
Kevin

Mike Cash · 09-22-2009, 11:40 PM

1959 Konica S
DNP Centuria 200
Linear Polarizer & ND8

Egl · 09-23-2009, 02:50 AM

Originally posted by KJon

Egl, I really enjoyed the B&Ws and was pretty impressed with your K20 digitizing method. Nice to see some pics from the homeland of my forebears (great-grandparents emigrated to the US of A) and I particularly liked the sheep. Bring 'em back.

Best to you both,
Kevin

Thanks for your comment. This method of digitizing does work well. I put up a 6MP picture as well so you see how the real resolution actually is.

http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4849-4.jpg

The limits of the method is probably that I have no means of keeping the negatives completly flat right now, so they might get abit out of focus for the macro lens. That lens' sharpness is probably good for more. I do wonder how this is compared to a proper negative scanner.

And nice to hear from a far distant relative. All is well here and the weather is nice (when its not raining). The first pictures were from the city Bergen and this last one from Trondheim.

KJon · 09-23-2009, 03:55 AM

Egl, Thanks for the 6MP post and the weather report. Rained every other day here in June and July which sort of cut into my photography.

While I don't have a K20D, I do have a K10D, and I may give your method a shot. I'm currently using an HP flatbed scanner with mixed results...

ME Super, Fuji Sensia 100...

ME Super, Fuji 400...

These are resized for the web, but the originals aren't a whole lot better <g>. (Black spots in the first shot are the result of some sketchy processing, although I'm sure there's plenty of dust in there as well). As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm looking for a better scanning solution. The real issue for me is cost/benefit and how good is good enough? I'm only really interested in digitizing stuff for sharing. For printing purposes, I'd have a professional scan done anyway. And then there's the time factor...this HP is reaaallly slllloooowww. In the meanwhile, I've been using lab scans (lo-res), but then we're looking at the continually added expense to every roll...

These are the circles my brain is spinning in. Sounds like it's time to break out the K10D, some cardboard, and a desklamp. Thanks for putting the thought in my head.

All the best,
Kevin

P. S. I'm really happy with the print the second one generated...as I am with most of the negatives I've scanned. The prints were the thing that led me to scan the negatives in the first place.

Egl · 09-23-2009, 04:43 AM

Originally posted by KJon

These are the circles my brain is spinning in. Sounds like it's time to break out the K10D, some cardboard, and a desklamp. Thanks for putting the thought in my head.

Alright, good luck! I will explain better how I did this then. I took a few photos of the setup. Its very very crude but it works. (I just post the links to the photos to not pollute this fine thread too much).

http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4926.jpg
http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4927.jpg
http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4928.jpg

Photographing the negatives directly against a lamp wont work. The light bulb is not an even light. So thats why I use the cardboard box as some kind of diffusor. Then I have no direct light and only bounced light. Also I lined the box with some printing paper. So I just put the negative over the hole in the box and take a photo down there.

A 60 watt tungsten bulb is no good. That get too warm for the negatives so they curl up from the heat. Im glad they got stright again after cooling down. So some modern kind of fluorocent bulb is probably much better.

Then of course the digitized photos must be processed digitally. For BW it seems ok to simply invert it and desaturate. And in the end ajdust contrasts/tones. It might be more complex with colour negatives, but I suppose it works with the right software.

I did see someone else do something similar but I could not find a link to what I read. Its a while since I read it. This guy used a K100D and a 100 mm macro lens I believe. And a bit more proper setup really. I wish I could find the link to that again but no luck. Perhaps someone can help?

easytiger · 09-23-2009, 08:13 AM

Tri-X 400, the morning after last week's typhoon:

Zav · 09-23-2009, 12:34 PM

A picture of "La Monnaie de Paris", Provia 100, cross processing.

KJon · 09-23-2009, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Egl

Alright, good luck! I will explain better how I did this then. I took a few photos of the setup. Its very very crude but it works. (I just post the links to the photos to not pollute this fine thread too much).

http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4926.jpg
http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4927.jpg
http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4928.jpg

Photographing the negatives directly against a lamp wont work. The light bulb is not an even light. So thats why I use the cardboard box as some kind of diffusor. Then I have no direct light and only bounced light. Also I lined the box with some printing paper. So I just put the negative over the hole in the box and take a photo down there.

A 60 watt tungsten bulb is no good. That get too warm for the negatives so they curl up from the heat. Im glad they got stright again after cooling down. So some modern kind of fluorocent bulb is probably much better.

Then of course the digitized photos must be processed digitally. For BW it seems ok to simply invert it and desaturate. And in the end ajdust contrasts/tones. It might be more complex with colour negatives, but I suppose it works with the right software.

I did see someone else do something similar but I could not find a link to what I read. Its a while since I read it. This guy used a K100D and a 100 mm macro lens I believe. And a bit more proper setup really. I wish I could find the link to that again but no luck. Perhaps someone can help?

Egl, thanks a lot for the photos - really gives me a sense of your setup - not exactly what I had envisioned so the pics are a big help. Also thanks for the headsup on the heat of the bulb. CFL may be the way to go. Looks like there may be a good use for those damned things after all. Re the post-processing; figured that was a foregone conclusion as the negative would need to be inverted at the very least

And just to keep the motif of the thread alive...

ME Super, TriX, Sigma 20mm f1.8 (lab scan)

Best,
Kevin

09-22-2009, 02:15 PM	#1443
KJon Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Connecticut, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 542	Javier, nice to see you back here with some new offerings <g>. I was beginning to jones for a fix from the left coast. I always enjoy the sense of place your photos have. BTW, B&W scan in your previous post looked great. How are you liking the new scanner? I'm in the market for one, but not really sure what I want or how much of a financial commitment I'm willing to make on it. If I put the funds into a scanner, it means a longer wait for a lens (or something else). Egl, I really enjoyed the B&Ws and was pretty impressed with your K20 digitizing method. Nice to see some pics from the homeland of my forebears (great-grandparents emigrated to the US of A) and I particularly liked the sheep. Bring 'em back. Best to you both, Kevin Last edited by KJon; 09-22-2009 at 02:22 PM. Reason: Egl's pics magically reappeared.

09-23-2009, 02:50 AM	#1450
Egl New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 17	Originally posted by KJon Egl, I really enjoyed the B&Ws and was pretty impressed with your K20 digitizing method. Nice to see some pics from the homeland of my forebears (great-grandparents emigrated to the US of A) and I particularly liked the sheep. Bring 'em back. Best to you both, Kevin Thanks for your comment. This method of digitizing does work well. I put up a 6MP picture as well so you see how the real resolution actually is. http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4849-4.jpg The limits of the method is probably that I have no means of keeping the negatives completly flat right now, so they might get abit out of focus for the macro lens. That lens' sharpness is probably good for more. I do wonder how this is compared to a proper negative scanner. And nice to hear from a far distant relative. All is well here and the weather is nice (when its not raining). The first pictures were from the city Bergen and this last one from Trondheim. Last edited by Egl; 09-23-2009 at 02:50 AM. Reason: Figuring out the link formatting.

09-23-2009, 03:55 AM	#1451
KJon Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Connecticut, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 542	Egl, Thanks for the 6MP post and the weather report. Rained every other day here in June and July which sort of cut into my photography. While I don't have a K20D, I do have a K10D, and I may give your method a shot. I'm currently using an HP flatbed scanner with mixed results... ME Super, Fuji Sensia 100... ME Super, Fuji 400... These are resized for the web, but the originals aren't a whole lot better <g>. (Black spots in the first shot are the result of some sketchy processing, although I'm sure there's plenty of dust in there as well). As I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm looking for a better scanning solution. The real issue for me is cost/benefit and how good is good enough? I'm only really interested in digitizing stuff for sharing. For printing purposes, I'd have a professional scan done anyway. And then there's the time factor...this HP is reaaallly slllloooowww. In the meanwhile, I've been using lab scans (lo-res), but then we're looking at the continually added expense to every roll... These are the circles my brain is spinning in. Sounds like it's time to break out the K10D, some cardboard, and a desklamp. Thanks for putting the thought in my head. All the best, Kevin P. S. I'm really happy with the print the second one generated...as I am with most of the negatives I've scanned. The prints were the thing that led me to scan the negatives in the first place. Last edited by KJon; 09-23-2009 at 04:18 AM. Reason: Add a post-script

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K20D test shots at Lets Go Digital	schufosi777	Pentax News and Rumors	6	04-20-2013 11:31 AM
Macro Cool Macro shots	derajjjg	Post Your Photos!	2	12-27-2009 09:36 PM
Lets see your Moon and Mars shots	Igilligan	Post Your Photos!	9	12-05-2009 08:55 AM
Way cool bat shots	and	General Talk	7	10-01-2009 02:54 AM
Cool Shots & Info	Fl_Gulfer	Post Your Photos!	0	12-10-2007 11:44 AM

09-21-2009, 10:51 PM	#1441
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	These are Walgreen scans and processing...The Reds in particular seem to be over saturated. Agfa 400, SP2, Super Tak 35f/3.5 a 60% crop Last edited by jgredline; 09-22-2009 at 08:46 AM.

09-22-2009, 08:46 AM	#1442
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster

09-22-2009, 02:24 PM	#1444
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by KJon Javier, nice to see you back here with some new offerings <g>. I was beginning to jones for a fix from the left coast. I always enjoy the sense of place your photos have. BTW, B&W scan in your previous post looked great. How are you liking the new scanner? I'm in the market for one, but not really sure what I want or how much of a financial commitment I'm willing to make on it. If I put the funds into a scanner, it means a longer wait for a lens (or something else). Thank you. I have not used the new set up since that last scan, but I am going to re-scan these last ones. On my monitor they look way over saturated. Is that the case on your monitor as well. The monitor I have at work is not calibrated and so I wonder. I have yet to get a good result form AGFA film..Not once.

09-22-2009, 02:30 PM	#1445
KJon Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Connecticut, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 542	Yeah, a little over-saturated, but that's part of their charm. I'm really fond of this one... Ultramax 400, K1000, M50 1.7 ...so I may not be the best guy to ask . Regards, Kevin

09-22-2009, 03:57 PM	#1446
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Originally posted by KJon Yeah, a little over-saturated, but that's part of their charm. I'm really fond of this one... Ultramax 400, K1000, M50 1.7 ...so I may not be the best guy to ask . Regards, Kevin Yes I agree. I love that Velvia 50 look, but mine looked some what over cooked to me.

09-22-2009, 03:57 PM	#1447
jgredline Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LosAngeles, Ca. Photos: Albums Posts: 10,628 Original Poster	Here are two rescans. Right to gray scale.

09-22-2009, 04:04 PM	#1448
KJon Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Connecticut, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 542	Takes care of the saturation issue pretty handily . Amazing what B&W will do to the tenor of a photograph... Best, Kevin

09-22-2009, 11:40 PM	#1449
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	1959 Konica S DNP Centuria 200 Linear Polarizer & ND8

09-23-2009, 04:43 AM	#1452
Egl New Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Norway Posts: 17	Originally posted by KJon These are the circles my brain is spinning in. Sounds like it's time to break out the K10D, some cardboard, and a desklamp. Thanks for putting the thought in my head. Alright, good luck! I will explain better how I did this then. I took a few photos of the setup. Its very very crude but it works. (I just post the links to the photos to not pollute this fine thread too much). http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4926.jpg http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4927.jpg http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4928.jpg Photographing the negatives directly against a lamp wont work. The light bulb is not an even light. So thats why I use the cardboard box as some kind of diffusor. Then I have no direct light and only bounced light. Also I lined the box with some printing paper. So I just put the negative over the hole in the box and take a photo down there. A 60 watt tungsten bulb is no good. That get too warm for the negatives so they curl up from the heat. Im glad they got stright again after cooling down. So some modern kind of fluorocent bulb is probably much better. Then of course the digitized photos must be processed digitally. For BW it seems ok to simply invert it and desaturate. And in the end ajdust contrasts/tones. It might be more complex with colour negatives, but I suppose it works with the right software. I did see someone else do something similar but I could not find a link to what I read. Its a while since I read it. This guy used a K100D and a 100 mm macro lens I believe. And a bit more proper setup really. I wish I could find the link to that again but no luck. Perhaps someone can help?

09-23-2009, 08:13 AM	#1453
easytiger Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: Hong Kong Posts: 122	Tri-X 400, the morning after last week's typhoon:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-23-2009, 12:34 PM	#1454
Zav Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,371	A picture of "La Monnaie de Paris", Provia 100, cross processing.

09-23-2009, 08:47 PM	#1455
KJon Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Connecticut, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 542	Originally posted by Egl Alright, good luck! I will explain better how I did this then. I took a few photos of the setup. Its very very crude but it works. (I just post the links to the photos to not pollute this fine thread too much). http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4926.jpg http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4927.jpg http://folk.ntnu.no/eigilh/bilder/bergen/pf/IMGP4928.jpg Photographing the negatives directly against a lamp wont work. The light bulb is not an even light. So thats why I use the cardboard box as some kind of diffusor. Then I have no direct light and only bounced light. Also I lined the box with some printing paper. So I just put the negative over the hole in the box and take a photo down there. A 60 watt tungsten bulb is no good. That get too warm for the negatives so they curl up from the heat. Im glad they got stright again after cooling down. So some modern kind of fluorocent bulb is probably much better. Then of course the digitized photos must be processed digitally. For BW it seems ok to simply invert it and desaturate. And in the end ajdust contrasts/tones. It might be more complex with colour negatives, but I suppose it works with the right software. I did see someone else do something similar but I could not find a link to what I read. Its a while since I read it. This guy used a K100D and a 100 mm macro lens I believe. And a bit more proper setup really. I wish I could find the link to that again but no luck. Perhaps someone can help? Egl, thanks a lot for the photos - really gives me a sense of your setup - not exactly what I had envisioned so the pics are a big help. Also thanks for the headsup on the heat of the bulb. CFL may be the way to go. Looks like there may be a good use for those damned things after all. Re the post-processing; figured that was a foregone conclusion as the negative would need to be inverted at the very least And just to keep the motif of the thread alive... ME Super, TriX, Sigma 20mm f1.8 (lab scan) Best, Kevin